What then is the "convenient truth"?

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:29 pm

Losing sight of the shore?

--------

Vicsun wrote:How can you tell, exactly?

There is uncertainty because there are multiple plausible theories, that both come with some arguments, but none are proven beyond reasonable doubt. And according to the method of hyperbolic doubt, if there is reason to doubt, there is uncertainty. And if there's uncertainty, there's no way to tell exactly.
--------

I think you can find the political motive for stimulating pro-CO2-research in a more abstract commodity than just money: Power. (Money is power, but money is ony a means)

As it is, the western world is dependant upon the Middle East and, increasingly, Russia. We (the western world) can't live without oil and gas, which means we're at these foreign countries' mercy. 'They' have power over 'us' and that goes beyond money. Although the blow that the western world will have to endure when the oilflow is stopped, because we failed to appease one of Arabia's wishes, for instance, will be far stretching, again financially.

And the message that these populist environmentalists bring is: stop using fossil fuels, because they will melt the earth. Well isn't that convenient?

Firstly, the real influence of CO2 on global warming is debatable, as the documentary clearly shows. Is it even true that any of our CO2 is heating the globe, or how damaging is the warming caused by CO2, if there is the case of CO2 accelerating global warming?

But also: what will happen when the underdeveloped countries start to successfully tap into their fuelreserves, specifically Africa? It will lead to a lot more competition in the oilmarket, because it stands to reason that Africa will sell much cheaper, as it desperately needs the money, which significantly decreases the influence of the current oil-magnates in Russia and the Middle East, which means even they have an interest in stopping the expansion of their market.

It is of vital importance for African countries, if they will want to be competitive players in the global market, to use their subterranean, cheap, abundant energy sources, but will they be able to do that if the western world tells them not to, or else..? And that makes the CO2 debate a question of development, because Africa is not in a position where it can afford scientific solutions that even the western world fails to apply effectively, which is mainly because of the cost of these "clean solutions".

So secondly, when you have that in mind, how can you want to enforce a theory that not all scientists agree on and that puts a brake on the development of countries which are relatively poor, who could really use the money and industrial progress? A case of keeping the poor poor so the rich can remain rich?

Obviously, for the countries that CAN afford clean high-tech solutions, the only sensible thing to do is invest big in those clean alternatives, because the oil-shackles are no good. But then let that be the reason, not one that limits world-wide use of a fine energy source.

And I don't want to say that every scientist that gets paid is a dishonest scientist, but you'll have to consider who pays them to do what. And in this case, politicians pay them to prove CO2 emission is bad for the world, to gain independance that is lost through foreign oil and gas and to put pressure on underdeveloped countries to use technologies that they can't afford. (the latter is brutal, at least, and IMO unacceptable as long as the theory justifying it is not undeniably undoubtedly true. EDIT: and it's just as much a doom-scenario as the global warming theory itself..)

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:02 pm

mr_sir wrote: As for the conspiracy theories: I have to ask, what do the world's governments have to gain by lying about global warming considering the amount of money they make from tax on petrol and oil (in the UK this is a large proportion of the actual price people pay for fuel), the amount of rich and powerful men that have shares and investments in fossil fuels and the manufacturing industry etc., and so on ... surely if they were going to try and cover things up they would cover up the theory that carbon emmisions are causing global warming because they all have a lot to lose as a result of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

If I may be so bold as to suggest a wild hypothesis, not to be confused with an assertion of Dogmatic Truth, it would be as follows:

Everybody knows that money talks, and perhaps the oil and automobile industries have been a bit complacent. Their efforts have been directed more to the pursuit of profit than to long term strategies, which is understandable, since their achievments are always measured on a short-term basis and always in profits. On the other hand we have military strategists. For sure, they don't give a toss about profits. And they are naturally inclined towards building huge nuclear facilities, not only because these lessen their dependence on foreign powers, but also because it gives them welcome additions to their arsenals. Now since these are not the good old days of Stalin and Hitler, when industries could just be directed by the will of politicians, private enterprises are reluctant to go out of business just to please military strategists. In addition, we have this nuisance known as public opinion which just won't go away, and which at this moment just had to be disfavourably dispositioned against nuclear power. Oh my, what are we to do? --Well, I know of this crackpot Swede who is the laughing stock of all the scientific community. Maybe we could use him! --Why not! We are running out of options now anyway, so what the heck!

Again, just a hypothesis, not Absolute Truth.

@lythium
Sorry, may have repeated some of you points. Saw you too late.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:39 am

I'm not saying CO2 is the only factor to Global Warming, but it having the highest level in some 500.000 years + and has increased dramatically the last couple of hundred years, with the only globally changing factor being humanity and society, the links appear to be there.
When the earth - if following the normal cycle of warmth should be cooling down, but isn't, more links appear to be there.

And when the only - from what I can see - actual arguments in this thread against the common scientific consensus currently is "well, they might be wrong" and conspiracy theories (keeping developing countries "down", hundreds of government in a global conspiracy buying off scientists etc), I'm sorry - but then I can't take such argumentation serious at all, because it lacks all reason and logic. It is like discussing faith with a religious person.

It simply looks to be the Ozone-layer all over, where scientific evidence were being dismissed as "biased" or what ever, simply because it wasn't profitable to switch out of CFC gasses. Thank the heavens (if one believes) that such ploys weren't successful back then. So even though we now are affected by the effects of depletion of the ozone layer, the perspective would have been much worse if the "it is all conspiracy theories" had won.

Even if CO2 is not the (sole) part of Global Warming. The focus on it, helps the environment in other ways as well - less dependence on fossil fuels and more innovation in clean technology are two major beneficial factors. I'd rather be wrong and have an earth in 50 years (well, okay - looking at humanity, I sometimes wonder though), then being proven right and we did nothing to prevent it, even though we could. Especially when we have the resources, can afford it, and are getting the technology to be able to counter it.

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:52 am

@Xandax

While I respect many of your points, I really think you need to stop misrepresenting other people's arguments. Who started talking about conspiracies? Well, Vicsun did, when he made a very dubious reading of one of my posts. Anyone can see that I did not mean a conspiracy of that sort, where all the world's leaders outline the Plan at night in the Paris underground. So why do you keep up the charade?

And as for this "because it is not profitable," come on! Is that what you are suggesting, that myself, Lady Dragonfly, and lythium are really agents of the oil industry? It is a serious question, so please answer it, because you have made a few such insinuations by now.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:51 am

Well, I think Xandax could be right for calling the motives and theories against Africa that I described in my post somewhat conspiracy-like...

However, to dismiss such theories because you can label it "conspiracy" may be a bit too simple..

I do agree that if man-made CO2 does have a significant and catastrophic effect on the environment, it would be a shame if we hadn't done anything against it and also, the boost that this CO2-theory, whether true or not, gives to research and innovation is great.

But the evidence for the theory is not rock-solid. As someone else pointed out, the spearhead argument behind it, the ice-core drillings, showed that the CO2 level lags 800 years behind temperature changes, which is certainly a weak argument if you're saying an increase in CO2 causes global warming.

So let's continue researching the clean fuels, but for the right motive: independance.

Because I think the potential "conspiracy" against Africa, using this scientific explanation of global warming being caused by using fossil fuels, is a very real and scientifically unaccaptable (as long as there is doubt) threat to that continent. So I definitely cannot agree with saying "I'd rather be wrong", because that is plain selfish.

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:39 am

Excuse my heresy, but I cannot really envision the entire ecosystem collapse just because the temperature rises a degree or two. As I said before, the weather used to be much warmer in the past, and we are here, are we not? What if Mother Earth, who is in fact still boss around here, decides to crank up the thermostat by, say, six degrees, without help or hindrance from mankind, as she has done in the past? Would we all go extinct then? In fact, we are a very adaptable species, and the whole ecosystem has adapted to far greater crises than this.

Seeing how many death sentences we have received lately, it is just unbelievable that mankind is still around. If it isn't Bird Flu, it's Mad Cow Disease, or HIV, or the ozone layer, or nuclear extinction, or too much fat, or too much carbon hydrates, or too little exercise, or too much stress. And now, death by drowning. As I said, it is just amazing that we still exist and are, in fact, healthier than ever. We live longer, our teeth do not fall out at thirty, and plague, pneumonia and tuberculosis do not lurk at every corner. That would be an improvement by anyone's standards.

Don't you see, journalists and scientists all thrive on occasions such as these; they have every incentive to exaggerate, because funding and public attention are fickle indeed. But is there really any indication that this trend of global warming in and of itself is causing any damage to the environment? If so, please enlighten me!

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:07 am

Naffnuff wrote:@Xandax

While I respect many of your points, I really think you need to stop misrepresenting other people's arguments. Who started talking about conspiracies? Well, Vicsun did, when he made a very dubious reading of one of my posts. Anyone can see that I did not mean a conspiracy of that sort, where all the world's leaders outline the Plan at night in the Paris underground. So why do you keep up the charade?

And as for this "because it is not profitable," come on! Is that what you are suggesting, that myself, Lady Dragonfly, and lythium are really agents of the oil industry? It is a serious question, so please answer it, because you have made a few such insinuations by now.

The entire "Keeping Africa down/undeveloped" and the "Governments buying off scientists to keep a fear of Global Warming and/or CO2" are nothing short of conspiracy theories.
They are not arguments which can be substantiated other then by personal belief like any other "good" conspiracy theory. Hence they are invalid or pointless to the majority of debates, which is why I compared it to discussing faith with a religious person.
Either you "believe" or you do not - proof is not needed. Or rather - as presented in this thread, "proof" for the arguments are not believed (or thought inconclusive) and no proof is needed to counter said arguments. Hence - conspiracy theories.

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:19 am

Xandax wrote:The entire "Keeping Africa down/undeveloped" and the "Governments buying off scientists to keep a fear of Global Warming and/or CO2" are nothing short of conspiracy theories.
They are not arguments which can be substantiated other then by personal belief like any other "good" conspiracy theory. Hence they are invalid or pointless to the majority of debates, which is why I compared it to discussing faith with a religious person.
Either you "believe" or you do not - proof is not needed. Or rather - as presented in this thread, "proof" for the arguments are not believed (or thought inconclusive) and no proof is needed to counter said arguments. Hence - conspiracy theories.

I just said I do not endorse these theories. So why do you persist? Do you even read my posts?

And you did not even answer my second question.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:56 am

Naffnuff wrote:Excuse my heresy, but I cannot really envision the entire ecosystem collapse just because the temperature rises a degree or two. As I said before, the weather used to be much warmer in the past, and we are here, are we not? What if Mother Earth, who is in fact still boss around here, decides to crank up the thermostat by, say, six degrees, without help or hindrance from mankind, as she has done in the past? Would we all go extinct then? In fact, we are a very adaptable species, and the whole ecosystem has adapted to far greater crises than this.

Just because we won't all go extinct doesn't mean it'll be particularly pleasent. The environment has remained more or less the same in the past several thousand years, and humans have settled based on environmental conditions such as the position of rivers and soil fertility. Climate change will cause desertification due to changing rainfall patterns along with a rise in sea-level. Adapting, as you put it, would cost immensely more than cutting carbon dioxide emissions - according to an article in The Economist I read recently, a conservative estimate for the costs the world would incur due to warming is about $3 trillion, or ~4% of the world's GDP (and that's not counting the human cost of an unprecented refugee rush). Costs associated with cutting carbon emissions were about a tenth of that, and as you point out they're likely to carry additional benefits.

Seeing how many death sentences we have received lately, it is just unbelievable that mankind is still around. If it isn't Bird Flu, it's Mad Cow Disease, or HIV, or the ozone layer, or nuclear extinction, or too much fat, or too much carbon hydrates, or too little exercise, or too much stress. And now, death by drowning. As I said, it is just amazing that we still exist and are, in fact, healthier than ever. We live longer, our teeth do not fall out at thirty, and plague, pneumonia and tuberculosis do not lurk at every corner. That would be an improvement by anyone's standards.

I'll address every single 'disaster' you listed as an attempt to be more comprehensive than my earlier snide comments (trust me, this is hard for me). Unless the bird flu virus mutates, humanity is safe - if it does mutate, it still won't be a big deal since precautions have been taken and vaccines have been produced. We identified a problem, and dealt with it. I'll give you Mad Cow Disease, as that was pretty much hype from the start, but any credibility you might have gained by mentioning it was immediately lost when you wrote HIV; do you honestly believe that HIV is just media hype? Sure malaria is a bigger problem, but HIV is very, very real. Regarding the ozone layer, again, the problem was identified and precautions were taken. CFCs were banned and as a result the ozone layer is closing. As for nuclear extinction, I'm not really sure how you believe that to be a media stunt either. Nothing else you mentioned is evently remotely threatening on a large scale, so I won't bother addressing it.

Don't you see, journalists and scientists all thrive on occasions such as these; they have every incentive to exaggerate, because funding and public attention are fickle indeed. But is there really any indication that this trend of global warming in and of itself is causing any damage to the environment? If so, please enlighten me!

Scientists' ability to exaggerate is severely limited by peer-review. I'll respond to more of your posts tomorrow, if my fickle attention isn't distracted.

edit: one last thing:

I just said I do not endorse these theories. So why do you persist? Do you even read my posts?

Then what is your view of the validity of the IPCC's findings?

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:41 pm

@Vicsun

Good, a solid answer from you for once!

Sickly birds and cows we can save for another occasion, lest this thread risk going way off topic. I really think I have been wordy beyond anyone's desire. But since you seem in such good form today, perhaps you would like to tell us why you are so sure that the present trend of global warming is caused by man-made CO2, and that the two do not just coincide.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:39 pm

Vicsun wrote:(...)Climate change will cause desertification due to changing rainfall patterns along with a rise in sea-level. Adapting, as you put it, would cost immensely more than cutting carbon dioxide emissions

Assuming man made CO2 is the cause of desertification, it would probably be the best solution to spend three hundred billion dollars to take away the cause.

But here's the kicker, and that's what I'm trying to say: For me, there is reasonable doubt, and if there is doubt, according to the rules of science, a theory can't be accepted. The consequence of accepting the CO2 theory is bad for underdeveloped countries, which adds not only a methodological argument against accepting the theory, but also a moral one. That is, until it can be proven beyond doubt that man made CO2 is causing significant damage to the earth's climate.

I'm just trying to see who can have interest in stimulating belief in the CO2 theory, and that leads to conspiracy-like assumptions which are not proof to why the CO2 theory is wrong, per se. But the driving reasons behind the theory, when it's not undoubtedly true, are motives you may need to understand. If there was no reason to doubt, it would be a clear case and such motives were unimportant. But it's not; there is doubt. So why then, is one of the theories accelerated into the public's suggestive mind? (euphemism for retarded, perhaps?)

In my opinion, it's just wrong to accept that man made CO2 causes global warming. Morally and methodically. That's what I'm trying to say. And as a result, you can't talk about cutting carbon emission globally, even if it's cheaper than adapting, because the theory is not undoubtedly true and the results keep Africa poor and undeveloped, because they cannot afford adapting to the attitude of cutting carbon emission and develop at the same time!!!

k, I think I made my point

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:02 am

Naffnuff wrote:@Vicsun

Good, a solid answer from you for once!

Sickly birds and cows we can save for another occasion, lest this thread risk going way off topic. I really think I have been wordy beyond anyone's desire. But since you seem in such good form today, perhaps you would like to tell us why you are so sure that the present trend of global warming is caused by man-made CO2, and that the two do not just coincide.

Both IPCC reports claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2.

lythium]But here's the kicker wrote: Interestingly enough, the main talking point against the Kyoto Protocol in the US was the fact that it had provisions which exempted 3rd world countries; the consequences of developed countries cutting CO2 would be negligible for developing countries. The consequences of global warming, on the other hand, will be felt strongest in developing countries since a) that's where desertification is most likely and b) they are the least likely to be able to use technology to handle it. If I recall correctly, Northern Europe might actually benefit from from a few degree rise in global temperatures.

Regarding doubt: the theory has been accepted in scientific circles, so the doubt climatologists feel seems to be less than the doubt you're feeling. Even if we assume the theory is very sketchy, and in reality there's only about a 20% chance global warming is caused by humanity's CO2 emissions (the IPCC says 95%), paying the relatively small costs of cutting carbon emissions now so we don't run the risk of paying the huge costs associated with global warming later would still be economically sound.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:25 am

Naffnuff wrote:I just said I do not endorse these theories. So why do you persist? Do you even read my posts?
<snip>

Because you use the arguments as a counter towards the scientific reports saying "man-made" CO2 is a major factor in global warming.
I've yet to see you present anything which could present doubt, which should mean more then what the consensus of the majority of the scientific community states currently. Especially outside the hugely biased and often laughable documentary to begin with; then it has been hearsay and other invalid type of argumentation.

You can believe what you want, but if you try to argue your belief it helps to back them up. And until then, I see no reason to actual counter your (lack of) arguments with more solid ones.

Naffnuff wrote: And you did not even answer my second question.

If you mean:

And as for this "because it is not profitable," come on! Is that what you are suggesting, that myself, Lady Dragonfly, and lythium are really agents of the oil industry? It is a serious question, so please answer it, because you have made a few such insinuations by now.

then I actually didn't think you were serious, because I've not once insinuated you were "agents of the oil industry", as I doubt you have the power to discredit anything scientific via this board

However, it is very much in the fossil fuel industry interest to keep fossil fuel flowing and used, that would be common knowledge, and it is a huge industry with many money involved. So it is just as likely that these industries tries to lobby for discrediting of the scientific reports stating CO2 as a culprit - similar to what has happened in the past within other industries.
There is a lot of money in oil, and many people want to keep it that way.

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:49 am

Vicsun wrote:Both IPCC reports claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2.

Interestingly enough, the main talking point against the Kyoto Protocol in the US was the fact that it had provisions which exempted 3rd world countries; the consequences of developed countries cutting CO2 would be negligible for developing countries. The consequences of global warming, on the other hand, will be felt strongest in developing countries since a) that's where desertification is most likely and b) they are the least likely to be able to use technology to handle it. If I recall correctly, Northern Europe might actually benefit from from a few degree rise in global temperatures.

Regarding doubt: the theory has been accepted in scientific circles, so the doubt climatologists feel seems to be less than the doubt you're feeling. Even if we assume the theory is very sketchy, and in reality there's only about a 20% chance global warming is caused by humanity's CO2 emissions (the IPCC says 95%), paying the relatively small costs of cutting carbon emissions now so we don't run the risk of paying the huge costs associated with global warming later would still be economically sound.

The IPCC actually talks of a confidence level of 90%, which is twice as uncertain as you suggested and acknowledges that it is not the sole cause of global warming.

derived from wikipedia:

UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit wrote:
We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.

– UK Parliament

An (ex) IPCC member, Christopher Landsea, finds the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" and Roger A. Pielke added, when publishing Landsea's letter: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations* isn't paying attention"

(*a term for peer-review in a bulky organization such as IPCC........ think about that. This quote refered to a publication about hurricanes in which Landsea was involved.)

Now, the pre-conceived agendas are not such a surprise because:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans. The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. One of the main activities of the IPCC is to publish special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)."

And what is the UNFCCC: "The [UNFCCC] treaty is aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gas in order to combat global warming"

So there is a scientific agenda, and there's a political agenda at play with the IPCC and the IPCC is not a scientific body, it is one to make reports and publications on man-induced global warming.

I'd say that's a pretty strong reason not to outright believe anything they manage to produce through their bureaucracy, though I'm not saying it's right to outright dismiss anything either...

And even so, the IPCC agrees with the fact that "Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized", so there's no way to prevent global warming from happening.

A "relatively small cost", as you put it, is, monitarily, according to your estimate, 300 billion dollars, and, through legislation, severe hinderance to developing countries (who seem to be screwed either way), which is added to the costs of the global warming that will continue even if you agree with the IPCC. So it's not a substituting cost, it's an additional cost, just as man-made CO2, in whatever scenario, is not the sole cause of temperature increase, but an additional one at most, and that it is a damaging influence to the earth's environment is entirely hypothetical and unproven, but that's what they're saying in "the inconvenient truth".

Furthermore, I personally find it "sketchy" to base any additional costs now, certainly when it involves moral disadvantages, on biased publications, as I'd call the IPCC reports. I kind of lost faith in preemptive self-defence.

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:21 am

Xandax wrote:Because you use the arguments as a counter towards the scientific reports saying "man-made" CO2 is a major factor in global warming.
I've yet to see you present anything which could present doubt, which should mean more then what the consensus of the majority of the scientific community states currently. Especially outside the hugely biased and often laughable documentary to begin with; then it has been hearsay and other invalid type of argumentation.

You can believe what you want, but if you try to argue your belief it helps to back them up. And until then, I see no reason to actual counter your (lack of) arguments with more solid ones.

I did in fact present the main arguments against the hypothesis above. And since I suppose the owner of this site does not want multiple posts

, I will have to direct you to my previous ones. And I have yet to see a response to any of those arguments.

Vicsun wrote:Both IPCC reports claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2.

Sorry Vicsun, this does not count. We all know what the IPCC thinks, but if we are only going to direct each other to external sources, what then is the point of this thread? What then is the point of SYM, why not just a link to Wikipedia? If I exert myself, why should you not do so? We can discuss it, can we not, even if you are so passionate about it? If you are into natural science, all the better, since you could probably explain the main points to us regular tadpoles so that we understand them. Mind you, I never said I knew anything about this subject; in fact, I begun by stating my ignorance. Do not get so annoyed, and instead demonstrate convincingly why this thing is real, and I promise you that I shall give you due credit for it. In return, I promise that next time you wonder something connected to my professional field, I will do my best to inform you.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:56 pm

I've watched the first part of the documentary. The first thing that strikes me is that I feel like I'm watching an example of sleight of hand. That's because the film (at least the first part of it) doesn't have a single narrator; instead, the narration consists of a string of quotations from various people who, as far as I know, are not even talking about the same point. I see quotes from people to the effect that global warming is happening but it is not caused by manmade CO2, right next to quotes from people who think that global warming isn't happening at all, followed by quotes from people who suggest that higher global temperatures are actually beneficial to humans. And I'm supposed to be intellectually rigorous if I want to challenge the conclusions of this documentary? Why can't I throw together a bunch of unrelated arguments that have conflicting assumptions and pretend that the result is a coherent argument? After all, fair is fair.

I'll see if I can bring myself to watch more of this documentary. But in the meantime, I want to ask everyone else a serious question. I want to make it clear that I am not being facetious. Why should people in the western world care about economic development in Africa? Instead of making a bunch of unspoken, half-baked assumptions, I'd like to figure out exactly what our moral imperatives are supposed to be. I'll tell you in advance where I'm heading with my own argument: if African economic development should indeed be one of our top priorities, then maybe we should be doing more to help Africa than going on a crusade to stop "them" (whoever those horrible people are) from "dictating to Africa" and hurting their chances of development.

One of the other problems that I've seen with this documentary so far (it's a problem for me, anyway) is that the issue of political leadership is not clearly defined. On the one hand, the focus of the film seems to be on U.K. politicians and scientists, who on the whole are accused of being "politically correct". But at the risk of sounding provincial, the United States political establishment seems to have a lot more effect on international policies than the U.K., just because the U.S. has more influence around the world. And when you talk about the U.S., you really have to acknowledge the way that the Bush administration has treated the issue of global warming. They have in fact suppressed evidence not just that global warming is caused by humans, but also that global warming is happening in the first place. And to suggest that the Bush administration's "skepticism" is founded on the noble intention to prevent harm to Africans is totally absurd. Therefore, to accuse the "opposition" of "dictating to Africa" seems completely off the mark to me. "You liberals are supposed to care about Africans, so why are you hurting them?" That's exactly the sort of argument I hear on conservative talk radio. "If you opposed the invasion of Iraq, then you support Saddam Hussein and mass murder and genocide." It's the same sort of argument to me.

I might watch more of the documentary so I can see exactly what sort of claims the documentary makes about the people who are "dictating to Africa", but in the meantime, can someone tell me exactly what is meant by that? By the way, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Here's what lythium said in his very first post on this subject:

"And maybe most alarmingly, it will tell how we are dictating the 3rd world, Africa in particular, that they can't use the (cheap reliable) resources they need so desperately, because of conclusions on research on the relationship between CO2 and global temperature, which were.. well... -wrong!"

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. Tell me who is dictating to the Third World, exactly how they are doing it, what sort of authority and enforcement mechanisms they have, and in the absence of any sort of meaningful, dictatorial power, why what a bunch of powerless people merely want to dictate to people over whom they have no actual power matters in the first place. I mean, I can go on a crusade to strike the letter M from the English language, but that doesn't mean you should be alarmed by it. If a good argument can be made why we're supposed to care about Third World countries in the first place, I'm sure we could also think of some more effective ways to help them, even if we cannot in fact "dictate" to them. I mean, why choose an inconvenient way of helping them when there are other, more convenient--and effective--ways to aid them?

Naffnuff · Post by **Naffnuff** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:05 am

I must say I agree with VonDundu here. The documentary is in fact poorly made in that it tries to victimize Africa and get credit for its stance by way of "siding with the weak." Also, if anyone believes that Bush was resisting on behalf of the poor Africans, so that they too can have cars and electricity, he should probably have his head examined. But on the other hand, I don't think that was what lythium meant.

But still, I think there are some crucial points that have yet to be examined here. Is there solid evidence for this hypothesis? If so, what is it? Of course, it is easier to attack your opponents on their weak spots, but isn't this the question we should really be dealing with here?

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:44 am

I have to say that I do not have answers to the questiond VonDondu posed and my statement, which she quoted, was merely a hypothetical one, in which I was trying to show how a global ban on CO2 could harm developing countries.

I do think the western world has enough influence over, in this case, Africa, I would say through cutting funds and trade relations, but I have no way to prove my statement that we could make their laws and hold them to it.

However, it does point out, I think, how a ban on CO2, which would have to be enforced globally to make any difference in case the CO2 influences global temperature significantly which has become popular belief, is not necessarily only good. And I think it is highly questionable, when you think of possible backfiring in weak countries, to implement a global ban on CO2 "just in case".

So, I don't think I can prove my hypothesis on Africa and as a topic, I don't think I'll have a leg to stand on.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:50 pm

The Great Swindle Debate "ABC Australia"

More

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ"]Video 1[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F25gZvmMJJM"]Video 2[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovluo-FdIp4"]Video 3[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4jnddLoIQ"]Video 4[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-r8dtdLMls"]Video 5[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cH8JMMew8"]Video 6[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGfnryuDwec"]Video 7[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYaAlyu8vbA"]Video 8[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Cb3sWjRGY"]Video 9[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5XV_Iylo3c"]Possible Rebuttal to Video1 to 9[/url]

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:01 pm

Interesting find, indeed.

I suppose this debate on ABC points out that the swindle documentary is definitely not a scientific document and graphs and quotes were misused in order to make a point.

Then again, didn't the Gore documentary do a similar thing, presenting the audience with only suggestive material (namely the hockeystick graph but also the conclusion based on a set of overlaying graphs showing co2 and global temperature, that co2 causes warming when cause and effect are more subtly connected)?

That's apperently how these tv documentaries work.

It's not about telling the people what the facts are and to explain the mechanisms, which is also a way too big topic to fit inside 70-something minutes, all they're doing is telling the people what they should believe.

Which is why I can't really believe either of the standpoints brought forward in both documentaries, neither great global warming swindle nor inconvenient truth.